Should depressed people be allowed to commit suicide?

This question seems to go back to individual rights. If they're obviously mentally ill, one could argue that it's our moral duty to prevent them from self-harm. But the only way to help them is to violate their personal right of autonomy.

We could round up all of the homeless people too, and stick them in a cheap-but-nice shelter. I'm sure that crime would decrease and cities would look nicer. It's tempting, but it's a horrible intrusion on their rights as citizens.

When looking at legal and moral issues, this question is surprisingly difficult to answer.

 

As long as they do not harm anyone else, why not?

 

What if they're depressed? What if a year later, after treatment for depression, they thank you for saving their life?

What is suicide is actually harmful, like if the death is painful or if it causes family members to grieve? What if it's a teenager who is just being stupid because their SO broke up with them?

 

In my religion are lives are gods so in my opinion it's not our life to take.

 

Interesting. Not sure what religion that is, but it reflects my sentiment. Every life has value and I think we have a moral obligation to help people around us. Letting them die, even at their own hands, seems unforgivable.

I wonder what a libertarian feels about this issue. They're the ultimate non-interventionists, but I find it hard to believe that they'd let their brother/mother/best friend/etc. kill themselves, especially for a trivial reason.

 

Everyone is depressed. It would be odd to see someone cheerfully contemplating suicide. The question can be simplified. Should people be allowed to suicide?

It's one of the few laws you only get prosecuted for trying to break, but face no consequences if you do break it.





​

 

I'm for individual freedom all the way. I say that if a person doesn't want to be here for any reason than that person can just set sail whenever they want. There should be no set of laws based on what some people will graciously "allow" other people to do.

That said, the depression factor is part of the whole euthanasia debate. There are places where it is legal for medical professionals to assist in the suicide of terminally ill people. Some people think the terminally ill person should not have an assisted suicide if the terminally ill person was deemed to be depressed when they made the decision to end their life. I see this as nothing but a sideways attempt to end medically assisted suicide. I see it as people trying to end something they don't like without admitting that they're trying to end it. Of course a terminally ill patient is depressed. Have you ever heard anyone say, "Yay! I have stage four stomach cancer! Hip, hip, hooray!" It is depressing to know you will die. That doesn't mean a person should be forced to waste away in excruciating pain.

But whatever the reason someone has to commit suicide, no law will stop them. It does not matter if we "allow" them to do it. Someone determined to end their life will find a way. (Think, exit bag.)

 

The opposite is just a likely to happen.

 

clinical depression is a moderate to severe mood disorder that is often physiologically based, with an observable and quantifiable chemical imbalance which affects brain function including perception and decision-making abilities. Those are the very attributes on which a subject is entirely dependent in order to make a life altering decision. You do not expect someone to run, if their knees are seizing and you cannot expect a rational competent decision when fundamental their perception of reality is compromised .

I think we ought keep them free of self harm, and make at least a superficial effort to treat the underlying mood and perception dysfunction with medication for say 3-6 months to ascertain their desires symptom free. Of course, we also have to recognize that mental health suffering is still suffering, and if we believe each of us has a right to do what's necessary to alleviate our physical suffering, we have the same right to end incessant mental and emotional anguish.

Its a fine line between totally ignoring depression's most obvious symptom, an underlying sense of hopelessness, which disables a realistic assessment of future reality and forcing a lifetime of unwanted or ineffective treatments.

We should make some effort to find out what they want, after some Prozac or other drug has reached their mood disorder, even if it is minimal and time constrained. Think of it as an extended enforced 'cooling off period' before their last 'contract' is legally binding on them.

 

Doesn't happiness alter our brain chemistry as well? Why single out depression? Any emotion can be considered as preventing us from making a purely logical decision.

Humans make decisions based on emotion. We do it all the time. We do it because we have emotions. We do it because we are emotional beings. Emotions are part of life. Forcing a terminally ill patient to act without emotion is just one more way we take their life from them. It's like telling them they're not allowed to end their life but they're not allowed to live it either.

 

...ahh? I have a sneaky feeling people who are "enjoying life" ...that suicide is not really something that is being considered.

 

Depression is an illness. It's not terminal. The illness should be treated and a person with depression should not be encouraged or permitted to commit suicide.

 

What if a relative had an addiction and you were invited to an intervention? Would you say: "No, it's his life, he can do what he wants." I don't see the harm in trying to help others. The only exception that I can think of is that the suicidal person's life is so miserable/painful that they can't bear to live -- like with people dying of cancer.

 

You are confusing sadness with depression. One is an emotional state. the other is a mood disorder that is measurable, quantifiable and diagnosed and often readily treatable . mind I am NOT saying that the diagnosis disallows the right to suicide and I have not discussed terminal patients at all. I am saying that the state is obliged to make some effort to treat the depression because its most prominent symptom negates any real sense of that choice being informed and fully competent. I have not said it has to succeed or that its efforts must be endless. In short, assuming there is no terminal illness with its physical symptoms, try a couple of meds, and wait long enough for them to have an impact before releasing them to their own devices.

We have a fine assisted suicide law in Oregon that balances the right to die for terminal patients, with a duty to ensure that the decision to take the pills is competently arrived at. I support that law.

 

If someone sees "warning signs" ...something that does not seem right then they should step in and try to help. I've had occations of being depressed recently. My closest loved ones...whether family or friends have always been there. That's the key! If someone is alone dealing with depression then that's not good.

 

Family means part of you. A bond of family gives you license and makes you responsible for a part of that person's life. It's not a sometimes thing. Once you make that bond, it's not easily stepped back from.

You ready to claim that level of responsibility for the 316 million other people who share this nation?





​

 

Who cares? Maybe they would be better off dead? How do you know their circumstances? How can you be OK with scrambling something with a consciousnesses at 14 weeks but now allow someone who hates their life to commit suicide?

You seem like a hypocrite.

 

Depressed? Absolutely not. Terminally ill is one thing, but depression is a temporary state which can be cured usually with little more than time.

 

Clinical depression is an illness that can be treated.

 

If we look at suicide as a permanent solution to a temporary problem, then allowing suicide for depression is illogical and a bad choice. Depression is a temporary state of mind. Suicide deprives the victim from any opportunity to move beyond depression and experience the joys of life again. I vote NO. However, in regards to suicide in the case of having a terminal illness, especially one that involves high levels of pain, is positively terminal and not curable, and is a financial and emotional drain on the patient and their family, I regard suicide a rational choice that should be legal and supported by society.

 

And what if they continue to not want to live and don't change their mind? Do you just lock them up forever?

Many homeless people in the U.S. would like shelter, but it is simply not available, and when it is available there is usually inadequate space for everyone that needs it. They are often overcrowded and very unpleasant places to be. The fact that many homeless people still choose to sleep outside in the cold even when shelter space may be available is a strong testament to that.

 

I suggest people get treatment first.... but yes, I think everyone has the right to choose not to live if they want to, death with dignity should be a right all Americans have


.

 

My favorite one is the people who want to punish those who try to commit suicide. What do you want to do, give them the death penalty?
Do you think that will dissuade them?

 

Anyone who committed suicide should be dug up and prosecuted.

 

We cannot stop them, so "allow" is moot, but no I would not support physician-assisted suicide if that is what you are getting around to.